The historic urban core: Case study of the warehouses in ... · 5/31/2018 · buildings registered on the local vigilance map (Trondheim kommune, 2013a). The most prominent monument

The historic urban core: Case study of the warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata

Dag Kittang and Mette Bye Department of Architecture and Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU

PICH: The impact of urban planning and governance reform on the historic built environment and intangible cultural heritage

2

PICH Case study 1: The historic urban core. Warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata

Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 2

Table of figures: ......................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5

2. The warehouses as a case study ....................................................................................... 5

2.1 The city and the location of the study area ......................................................................... 52.2 History and significance for cultural heritage ..................................................................... 7

History and significance for the Midtbyen peninsula ........................................................... 7

History and significance for Kjøpmannsgata ....................................................................... 10

2.3 Challenges for the area ..................................................................................................... 133. Evolution of the governance and planning of the historic built environment ................ 14

3.1 Evolution of policy 1945 – 1979 ........................................................................................ 143.2 Implementing policy 1980-2007 .............................................................................. 173.3 Evolution of policy 2007-2016 ................................................................................. 184. The legal and policy framework in 2016 and beyond ..................................................... 21

4.1 Policy themes and general goals – national and local ............................................. 214.2 Incentives and financial tools .................................................................................. 224.3 Communication and citizen’s engagement ....................................................................... 244.4 The Vitalization project for Kjøpmannsgata ............................................................ 255. Mapping change in Kjøpmannsgata ................................................................................ 28

5.1 The study area of Kjøpmannsgata ..................................................................................... 28Kjøpmannsgata 1850-1950 .................................................................................................. 28

Kjøpmannsgata 1950-1981 .................................................................................................. 29

Kjøpmannsgata after 1981 .................................................................................................. 30

5.2 Changes of function ................................................................................................. 326. Experiencing Kjøpmannsgata .......................................................................................... 34

6.1 How main features constitute the city and sense of place ............................................... 346.2 The valuation of the cultural heritage and sense of place ................................................ 366.3 Management in preserving the sense of place. ................................................................ 397. Consequences of planning reform for the cultural heritage and sense of place ............ 42

7.1 How is the governance and planning of the historic urban core changing and why? ...... 437.2 How are relationships between tangible and intangible cultural heritage in governing of urban heritage? ....................................................................................................................... 447.3 What are citizens’ perceptions of sense of place? ............................................................ 447.4 How can policy makers manage place identity in the historic urban core? ...................... 458. References ....................................................................................................................... 46

3


Table of figures: FIGURE 1: THE PENINSULA OF TRONDHEIM’S URBAN HISTORIC CORE MIDTBYEN, PHOTO: WIKIMEDIA 2008 5FIGURE 2: THE WAREHOUSES IN KJØPMANNSGATA ON THE LEFT SIDE FACING THE RIVER NIDELVA. PHOTO:

OLE TOLSTAD ........................................................................................................................ 6FIGURE 3: WAREHOUSES IN KJØPMANNSGATA, FACING MIDTBYEN, THE HISTORIC CORE. PHOTO: DAG

KITTANG ............................................................................................................................... 6FIGURE 4: CHARACTERISTIC TWO-STOREY WOODEN ARCHITECTURE OF TRONDHEIM’S HISTORIC URBAN CORE –

MIDTBYEN – NORDRE GATE, ONE OF THE MAIN STREETS IN 1878. PHOTO: HANS KRAMM ................. 7FIGURE 5: A FUTURE VISION OF THE CITY SHOWING KJØPMANNSGATA’S WAREHOUSES REPLACED WITH

MODERNIST OFFICE BLOCKS IN AN ILLUSTRATION FROM PROFESSOR SVERRE PEDERSEN’S 1937 PLAN

FOR MIDTBYEN ...................................................................................................................... 8FIGURE 6: THE CASE STUDY AREA KJØPMANNSGATA OUTLINED .............................................................. 9FIGURE 7: VIGILANCE MAP OF HERITAGE INTERESTS IN THE HISTORIC URBAN CORE (BELOW) . THE PINK

SECTIONS MARK AREAS OF INTEREST FOR MEDIEVAL ARCHAEOLOGY. BLUE, PURPLE AND RED INDICATE

GRADUATED HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL VALUE OF INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS, IN THE ORDER

MENTIONED WITH RED AS THE HIGHEST RANKING. (TRONDHEIM KOMMUNE, 2013A). .................... 10FIGURE 8 MEDIEVAL CITY OF TRONDHEIM, RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CITY AROUND THE YEAR ILLUSTRATED

BY1300 BY KARL-FREDRIK KELLER AND ARCHAEOLOGIST ØYSTEIN EKROLL. MIDDELALDERBYEN

NIDAROS, OSLO 2008 .......................................................................................................... 12FIGURE 9 THE MASCHIUS PRINT FROM 1674. THE COPPER PRINT FROM THE HAND OF MASCHIUS FROM

1674 SHOWS THE CITY WITH THE STORAGE HOUSES BEFORE THE BIG CITY FIRE. TRONDHEIM BYARKIV 12FIGURE 10: OLD POSTCARD "TRONDHEIM, THE NIDELVEN RIVER AND THE WAREHOUSES" SHOWING THE

WAREHOUSES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE RIVER NIDELVA, THE KJØPMANNSGATA WAREHOUSES TO THE

RIGHT, THE CATHEDRAL IN THE BACKGROUND. TRONDHEIM BYARKIV. ........................................... 13FIGURE 11: THE WAREHOUSES IN KJØPMANNSGATA AND THE CATHEDRAL ARE THE MOST ICONIC IMAGES OF

TRONDHEIM AS A HISTORIC CITY, AND ARE SIGNIFICANT MARKERS FOR PLACE IDENTITY. PHOTO: ANNE

JØRGENSEN BRULAND ........................................................................................................... 14FIGURE 12: SVANEAPOTEKET AND HORNEMANSGÅRDEN. PHOTO: DAG KITTANG ................................... 16FIGURE 13: FIRE IN WAREHOUSES, 1983. PHOTO: ADRESSEAVISEN ..................................................... 17FIGURE 14: MIDTBYPLANEN 1981. ................................................................................................ 17FIGURE 15: DIVE ANALYSIS REPORT WITH CAPTION FROM THE REPORT SHOWING THE UPPER LEVEL OF

KJØPMANNSGATA IN AN INTERMESH BETWEEN A HISTORIC PHOTO AND TODAYS STREET VIEW. .......... 25FIGURE 16: IN 2014 ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS AT NTNU BUILT A WOODEN STAIRCASE IN THE RAMPART TO

MEDIATE BETWEEN THE UPPER AND LOWER LEVEL OF KJØPMANNSGATA IN COLLABORATION WITH THE

MUNICIPALITY AS A TEMPORARY INTERVENTION IN THE URBAN FABRIC. THE STAIRCASE IS MUCH USED, AND GIVES EASIER ACCESS TO THE LOWER LEVEL, ACTIVATING THE URBAN SPACE IN KONGENS GATE

ALMENNING. PHOTOGRAPH: METTE BYE ................................................................................. 26FIGURE 17: ACTIVITY ON KONGENS GATE ALLMENNING DURING A CONFERENCE I 2014 (LEFT); A NON-

TRANSFORMED WAREHOUSE RIGGED FOR A CONCERT AND EXHIBITION OF STUDENT WORKS IN 2014

(WRIGHT). PHOTOGRAPHS: METTE BYE .................................................................................. 27FIGURE 18: THE MUSIC PAVILION IN KJØPMANNSGATA BY KONGENS GATE ALMENNING OLD POSTCARD,

PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. ........................................................................................................... 28

4


FIGURE 19: AFTER A FIRE A PARKING GARAGE REPLACED THE OLD WAREHOUSES. PHOTO: DAG KITTANG .... 30FIGURE 20: ROYAL GARDEN HOTEL – A PARAPHRASE OF HISTORIC STRUCTURE IN CONCRETE AND GLASS. ... 31FIGURE 21: PASTICHE RECONSTRUCTION OF BURNED WAREHOUSES KJØPMANNSGATA 61 FROM 1962 IS AN

OFFICE BUILDING IN CONCRETE, TO THE RIGHT KJØPMANNSGATA 63, 65, 67, BUILT IN THE 1980S .........32

FIGURE 22: HUITFELDTBRYGGA. THREE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS, CONNECTED UNDER A COMMON ROOF. THE

BUILDING IN THE MIDDLE IS THE OLDEST FROM AROUND 1760. AN EXAMPLE OF REPAIRING THE

FOUNDATIONS TO THE RIGHT. ................................................................................................. 37FIGURE 23: JØPMANNSGATA UPPER AND LOWER STREET WITH RAMPART AND DRIVING RAMP.............40

5


1. Introduction This paper presents and examines the historic wooden warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata, Trondheim as a case study. Kjøpmannsgata is a designated conservation area which during the time of the case study research is subject to several processes, with restoration and vitalization of the buildings and the area as the overall goal. Current work for Kjøpmannsgata includes the making of a new area zoning and conservation plan, and a project to encourage restoration and regeneration of the buildings, as well as various schemes to activate urban space. The process to vitalize Kjøpmannsgata implies collaboration between private and public actors in urban development in a way which has not previously been tested in Trondheim.

2. The warehouses as a case study 2.1 The city and the location of the study area Trondheim is the third largest city in Norway and the economic capital of the middle part of the country. The population is counting 193 500 inhabitants (Statistics Norway, 2017). The Norwegian University of Science and Technology with almost 40 000 students plays an important role in the city, economically and socially, and gives the city character as a university city.

Figure 1: The peninsula of Trondheim’s urban historic core Midtbyen, Photo: Wikimedia 2008

The historic core of Trondheim, referred to as Midtbyen which means “mid-town”, is laid out on flat land, forming a peninsula enclosed by the river and canal, its land measuring around 100 hectares. Midtbyen is acknowledged as the historic, commercial and cultural center of Trondheim. Central institutions like the theatre, main concert house, town hall and main offices for the municipal and regional administrations, the main library and art museums,

6


several hotels, as well as shopping streets and commercial office space, are found within the boundaries of Midtbyen today. Considering that Midtbyen constituted the major part of the actual city for many centuries, the number of residents today is relatively low counting about 4500 inhabitants (Statistics Norway, 2016).

The area selected for this case study is a section of Midtbyen called Kjøpmannsgata which translates as “Traders street”, where the historic wooden warehouses facing the river constitute the city`s probably most photographed touristic view. The actual street consists of two streets, a higher and a lower street separated by a grass and tree-clad rampart.

Kjøpmannsgata was established after 1681 as a market street and a main thoroughfare and is part of Trondheim’s 17th century baroque town plan. The wide street with its rampart and trees was also a fire prevention measure. The open space was to protect the warehouses with their valuable goods from being contaminated by fires originating in the city and leafy trees catch sparks before reaching the eaves of the warehouse buildings (Blom et al., 1997).

This is also the core of the medieval city of Trondheim, and the ground is protected for its potential for archaeological findings. The higher street is on the level of the rest of Midtbyen and a main traffic thoroughfare in Midtbyen city center. The lower street is also trafficked by cars today although less intensively. The lower street is lined with historic ware houses, where goods from the boats on the historic river port were unloaded and redistributed.

Figure 2: The warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata on the left side facing the river Nidelva. Photo: Ole Tolstad

Figure 3: Warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata, facing Midtbyen, the historic core. Photo: Dag Kittang

7


Despite its central location and popularity as a scenic view from the river, Kjøpmannsgata as a street is considered something of a backdrop in the city center. Some of the ware houses have been empty for many years and are in an accelerating state of decay. This has a contaminating effect for the impression of the Kjøpmannsgata area, leading to a general belief that the line of ware houses is at risk.

2.2 History and significance for cultural heritage Trondheim promotes its heritage and image as a historic city, competing to be the first urban settlement in Norway. The city has monuments of national, regional and local significance. The municipality has had a local conservation office since 1984, and has 6000 buildings registered on the local vigilance map (Trondheim kommune, 2013a). The most prominent monument and dominating the city skyline is the cathedral, one of two surviving medieval churches of which counted thirteen at the most. Eighteenth century wooden merchant palaces are strongly represented among Trondheim’s listed buildings, both the town houses of Midtbyen, and the country houses where the same families would reside in the summer. The warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata and the cathedral are the most iconic images of Trondheim as a historic city and are significant markers for place identity.

History and significance for the Midtbyen peninsula Trondheim was established 997 and the medieval city was characterized by a dense urban structure cut through by irregular narrow streets and walkways. Wood was the common building material in towns of Norway from early Middle Ages. As a building material it is vulnerable to the hazards of fire which contributed to the renewal of towns and cities many times; in Trondheim most significantly after the city fire in 1681 when almost the entire city was ravaged. After the 1681-fire the layout of the city was completely altered when a new town plan was drawn up and the city rebuilt according to a slightly skewed grid, with main axis forming a cross with a large square in the center.

Figure 4: Characteristic two-storey wooden architecture of Trondheim’s historic urban core – Midtbyen – Nordre gate, one of the main streets in 1878. Photo: Hans Kramm

8


The 1681-city plan for Trondheim was conceived by the planner and general Johan Caspar Cicignon. It is a full blown baroque town plan which was carried out in its entirety and is preserved in the street pattern today. Few buildings have survived from the late seventeenth century, but the city still has preserved much eighteenth and nineteenth century wooden architecture.

The city was founded on the river for its fortification and has been a regional center of trade throughout its existence. The century 1760-1860 is referred to as the city’s golden age, when trade (Trondheim kommune, 2016) and commerce peaked, and accumulated wealth allowed for the construction of many prominent buildings, within the grid of the new town plan. The architectural ideals from continental brick and stone buildings, especially Danish and German, were interpreted and translated into wood (Kavli, 1966), leaving Trondheim with a rich cultural heritage of wooden architecture.

Trondheim’s industry and trade developed significantly in the nineteenth century and subsequently the city center was under consistent renewal. In 1841 and 1842 the northeastern section of the city burned and quickly rebuilt with a characteristic two story wooden street buildings, many with shops on the ground floor and upstairs apartments, an open courtyard and utilities buildings at the back. Following the big fires, and in tune with national policy, wood was prohibited as a main building material within the city boundaries in 1845. Stone, brick and rendered surfaces replaced wood as the characteristic building and facade material, leaving the wooden town as an obsolete and unique urban fabric which was ultimately to constitute a significant part of its built cultural heritage.

Modernist ideas in planning and architecture introduced by modernist architects also had an impact on the historic core of Trondheim. In the spirit of le Corbusier, architect and city planner Sverre Pedersen introduced a vision for Trondheim in 1937 involving demolition of all historic fabric except monuments like the cathedral and royal mansion (Stiftsgården). Most of the city’s historic wooden architecture including the warehouses were replaced by modernist blocks (Figure 5) (Stugu et al., 1997).

Figure 5: A future vision of the city showing Kjøpmannsgata’s warehouses replaced with modernist office blocks in an illustration from Professor Sverre Pedersen’s 1937 plan for Midtbyen

9


The plan never reached the level of a formal plan. It was not well received among the citizens and remained on the sketching board. No similar plan for Midtbyen was later made, leaving the urban renewal of Midtbyen in the post war era in the hands of individual property owners, to be developed on a property by property basis.

The designated built heritage of Midtbyen today counts forty buildings listed according to the 1978 cultural heritage act, and circa one thousand buildings with heritage status in the municipal classification of heritage buildings. This central part of the city has been under a general conservation regime since 1981, with four larger designated conservation areas including the Kjøpmannsgata area, within its boundaries. Since 2014 the entire peninsula of Midtbyen has a status as a special consideration zone in the municipal zoning plan (Trondheim kommune, 2012:11):11.

Figure 6: The case study area Kjøpmannsgata outlined

10


Figure 7: Vigilance map of heritage interests in the historic urban core (below) . The pink sections mark areas of interest for medieval archaeology. Blue, purple and red indicate graduated historic and architectural value of individual buildings, in the order mentioned with red as the highest ranking. (Trondheim kommune, 2013a).

History and significance for Kjøpmannsgata The port on the west bank of the river Nidelva was the city´s port from medieval times. The tradition of storage houses built alongside the river bank goes back to city´s origins. The city was founded on a site where two bays formed a natural harbour, which with time were filled with waste and masses, as was the riverbed, moving the water´s edge forward. The city developed with buildings on narrow plots which lined the river, the riverside storage houses closely connected to aligning utilities buildings and dwellings upwards from the bank. The goods exported from the storage houses in medieval times were furs and hides, butter, dried fish and iron. Trade fluctuated with the black plague, the reformation of the church and the various political alliances, and along with it the city´s importance as trade centre. In 1547 Trondheim received royal privileges to trade, an arrangement which ensured that some essential goods must pass through the merchant houses of the city before being traded on, an arrangement which ensured financial growth of the merchant houses and an important pre-requisite for Trondheim's "golden age" of trade and wealth in the 18th century, which the present row of warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata stand witness to.

11


The copper print from the hand of Maschius from 1674 shows the fully developed row of storage houses seven years before the big city fire which destroyed the city and the wharf buildings along with it, after which the city was reconstructed according to the new city plan. Kjøpmannsgatas reconstruction with its two streets on two levels, divided by the rampart with a total width of about 38 meters, was a significant part of the concept of the baroque town plan, designed with both military and financial purpose. In the case of attack, the wharf buildings could burn and the rampart function as a demarcation line for a siege; in the case of a city fire, the rampart divider would prevent fire from spreading to the warehouses, protecting the city´s trade assets from destruction.

The warehouses were quickly rebuilt, and as traditions of craftsmanship were strong, with wood as main building material and continuity in the manner of building. The major difference was the street and rampart of Kjøpmannsgata which divided the warehouses from the town house, office and other buildings on the property. The new town houses on the upper street show some greater adherence to contemporary European architectural style, some were built in brick and show strong baroque features. In the decades following the 1681 city fire the trade fleet in Trondheim doubled, wealth accumulated and the city grew. There was much building activity especially in the late 18th century and up until 1814, his was demonstrated also in Kjøpmannsgata where new warehouses were built and some old replaced. In the years 1850-1875 the warehouse row underwent a new wave of renewal, a total of nine warehouses were constructed in this period, the last to built after the "old fashion" with notched log timber construction in one or more storeys.

The warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata gradually went out of their original intended use as warehouses for the river port during the 19th century as the river became increasingly mudded and too shallow for the larger ships. A new row of warehouses was built along the fjord, on the northern shoreline of the Midtbyen peninsula, in competition with the old river harbour. In the 1870s, a new and modern harbour constructed on the sandbank north of the city, taking over the bulk of the harbour activity in the city. Ships continued to sail on the river well into the 20th century, and some of the warehouses retained their use in part, while many found new use as storage for various companies, the goods now loading and lossing from the street side with horse and carriage, and later, cars.

The warehouses along the river in Kjøpmannsgata and canal in Fjordgata are characteristic for the town scenery. Of the two streets, the wharf buildings in Kjøpmannsgata, being the oldest and better preserved, are considered to be of the higher cultural historic value.

The warehouses are recognized as being of high cultural and historic value for Trondheim and on a national level. The high number of standing buildings from the various phases in the warehouses development over time, their high level of authenticity, the continuity in the built surroundings and context which constitute a complete cultural environment, are valued as the tangible heritage of Kjøpmannsgata’s warehouses, their significance being their undisputed role in the development of Trondheim as city of trade over centuries.

12


Figure 8 Medieval city of Trondheim, reconstruction of the city around the year illustrated by1300 by Karl-Fredrik Keller and archaeologist Øystein Ekroll. Middelalderbyen Nidaros, Oslo 2008

Figure 9 The Maschius print from 1674. The copper print from the hand of Maschius from 1674 shows the city with the storage houses before the big city fire. Trondheim byarkiv

13


Figure 10: Old postcard "Trondheim, the Nidelven river and the warehouses" showing the warehouses on both sides of the river Nidelva, the Kjøpmannsgata warehouses to the right, the cathedral in the background. Trondheim byarkiv.

2.3 Challenges for the area Trondheim today is a fast growing city, with an expected substantial increase in population over the coming years. The city has enjoyed a relative growth in wealth throughout the postwar era. Over the past 15 years Trondheim has acquired a growing urban character, with new building- and area transformation schemes in the harbor area and on the fringe of the urban historic core, expanding the city center beyond the boundaries of Midtbyen. The historic urban core has also experienced new constructions, more or less in adaptation or at least interpretation of the historic buildings and existing area character.

In the post war era smaller fires and urban renewal diminished the historic fabric of the historic urban core. A great number of singular wooden building and some whole building blocks were lost. In some cases, the space was left open for decades for parking, in several cases rebuilt with modernist office blocks. Even listed buildings were removed from Midtbyen; the conservation authorities lost several battles over listed buildings and were forced to concede to seeing buildings relocated to the open air museum. The debates over these losses were deeply polarized (Kittang, 2007).

For the Kjøpmannsgata warehouses conversion to housing has until the present been prevented by the zoning plan. A resolution made in 2007 to allow housing as a means to vitalize the buildings, could challenge conservation interests. Conversion to housing involves significantly greater intervention with the historic fabric of these structures than for example use as office space, and the sectioning of the buildings into private apartments make alterations irreversible in practice. A cultural historic area mapping and new zoning plan for the Kjøpmannsgata area have been initiated to navigate the process of area transformation.

14


Figure 11: The warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata and the cathedral are the most iconic images of Trondheim as a historic city, and are significant markers for place identity. Photo: Anne Jørgensen Bruland

3. Evolution of the governance and planning of the historic built environment

3.1 Evolution of policy 1945 – 1979 When the modernization of the towns started after the last world war, the old wooden areas were suffering from years of neglected maintenance. The Building Act from 1904, after the great fire in Ålesund, prohibited use of wood as a main building material in urban areas. Since it was no longer allowed to build new houses in timber, and new houses in brick and concrete could exploit the expensive down town sites significantly better, the old wooden houses were poorly maintained and often demolished to make way for new and more contemporary and higher buildings (Kittang, 2014).

Eventually the view and attitude towards protecting and renewal of the historic wooden buildings and city centres changed. That meant also a change in legal and policy framework. In replacement of the act on redevelopment of urban areas from 1967, the act on renewal of urban areas was approved, giving new conditions for development of the conservation areas. Loans and grants for repairing older residential buildings in connection with systematic urban renewal were provided, and thus took the consequences of the criticism of the demolition of old urban environment.

15


A new Building Act from 1965 opened up for protecting larger historic urban areas (Kommunal- og arbeidsdepartementet, 1965). This act also gave room for citizens’ engagement and involvement. In new planning and building regulations from 1987 new performance based building codes were introduced and opened up new possibilities of using wood in urban areas (Ministry of Climate and Environment, 1985).

Mass automobilism in the post war era was a significant factor in the changing use and infrastructure of cities, in Trondheim as in any city where the private car became a common. The rationing on private automobiles was lifted in 1960, and by the early seventies every second family owned a car. In 1973 there were a million vehicles registered in the country, which had a population of 3.8 million at the time. The private car enabled more and more people to move to the suburbs (Bjørnland and Hegdalstrand, 1989).

In the post-war era Trondheim developed extensive urban sprawl. The generous topography allowed for an especially high number of single family homes, an inefficient land use which encouraged massive private automobilism. Major infrastructure and road plans threatened to demolish historic wooden neighbourhoods close to Midtbyen as well as sections of Midtbyen, (Andersson & Skjånes AS, 1965) but by 1980 these were abandoned.

When the modernization of the towns started after the last world war, the old wooden areas were suffering from years of neglected maintenance (Stugu et al., 1997). From a weak position on the 1960-1970 century where the wooden towns were characterized by decay and threatened by urban renewal plans which meant that the old wooden communities were to be demolished and replaced, strengthened the protection of buildings beyond the 1980-1990's.

This development was characterized by major players and which positions key institutions took locally, nationally and even internationally. ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) initiated in 1970 an extensive survey of the wooden town in the Nordic countries, their conditions, threatens and possibilities (ICOMOS and Konsthögskolans arkitekturskola, 1972).

Another milestone in building conservation was the European Architectural Heritage Year in 1975, initiated by the Council of Europe. It was suggested that each country should point out pilot projects for good and effective urban environment conservation and show how conservation theories could be put into practice. Norway listed three wooden towns, all representatives of various wooden town traditions.

Architectural Heritage Year with the Amsterdam Declaration was well rooted in central government and leaded gradually to change in legislation with stronger emphasis on conservation policies (Council of Europe, 1975 ). Around 1970, the attitude concerning urban development changed. In Trondheim as in large parts of Western Europe, the focus was put on the historical urban environment's importance for the quality of urban life in general.

1972 was a milestone in saving the cultural heritage in the city center when the work for saving the impressive mansion houses of Svanepoteket and Hornemannsgården were

16


crowned with success (Kittang, 2014). This started a work of mapping the entire architectural heritage in the historic center and outside.

Figure 12: Svaneapoteket and Hornemansgården. Photo: Dag Kittang

The Report on conservation values in the city center “Trondheims bybilde” (The Image of Trondheim) was launched 1976 and established a basis for the work with the new zoning plan for the historic core, Midtbyen (Antikvarisk utvalg, 1976). This report was groundbreaking in the sense that it did not only registered and evaluated individual cultural heritage buildings, but left as much weight to the town's cultural environment and the image of the city. This report was of great importance for the public’s understanding of the value of cultural heritage in the city.

Fires have had a significant impact on urban renewal in Trondheim, where most buildings were constructed in wood before legislation to forbid building with wood was introduced in Trondheim in 1845. Before 1845 town fires were a major driver for change in the fabric of the city center. After 1845, smaller fires have changed the image of the city. In 1967 six warehouses in the northern part of Kjøpmannsgata were demolished by fire. Construction of new warehouses to replace the old ones, all adapt to some extend to the historic environment, and at the same time reflecting the architectural styles of their decade.

After fires in the warehouses, modern buildings were often built in historic typology. They were also adapted to modern needs like the need for large garages, offices and hotel. After a large fire in 1967 there was a debate on how the site should adapt to modern needs and to the typology of the area. One of the most valuable warehouse buildings, Hegstadbrygga had survived the fire, but was demolished after negotiations and discussions, to allow for maximum space for the new Royal Garden Hotel. The hotel was built in glass, steel and concrete but in an interpretation of the warehouse typology.

17


Figure 13: Fire in warehouses, 1983. Photo: Adresseavisen

3.2 Implementing policy 1980-2007 The zoning plan for Trondheim city center, Midtbyen, in 1981 was a breakthrough for conservation ideas. The plan aims to protect the historical values and the character of the wooden town in general and included four specific conservation areas, of which the warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata were one. A new way of cultivating the city as a historic environment was adopted (Trondheim kommune, 1981).

Figure 14: Midtbyplanen 1981.

The zoning plan of Midtbyen was approved in 1981, based on a precondition to protect the cultural heritage values in Midtbyen. The general rule (for new structures) being four stories,

Conservation area: Fjordgata Conservation area: Sanden/ Hospitalsløkka Conservation area Kjøpmannsgata Conservation area: The Cathedral area.

18


however with allowance for flexibility where the setting allowed for it. The plan established principles designed to be flexible to allow for preservation and development, conservation and use. A living historic city center was the overall aim. The flexibility of the plan allowed for interpretation and negotiation, frequently resulting in greater renewal of historic fabric and change of place character to a somewhat larger extent than the zoning plan originally intended, and the need for a new plan or a revision of the 1981 plan was advocated by some.

3.3 Evolution of policy 2007-2016 The economic crisis in 2008 had little effect on the Norwegian economy. Stabilized by government initiatives and a strong economy based on gas and oil production, there was no significant deficiency in private building initiatives, public jobs or commercial activities (Finansdepartementet, 2009). A shift in governance and planning practice however can be detected, which to some extent follows the patterns of neoliberalism in other European countries. Property developers strengthened their positions during the first decade of the second millennium, and have had increased influence in urban development. In the case of Trondheim few and strong actors dominate the urban development in the historic urban core of Trondheim (Trondheim kommune et al.). Major real estate companies play a more important role in urban development and have become significantly stronger as negotiating partners. Planning practice has shifted, with greater emphasis on public - private cooperation and negotiation rather than strict regulation from the government.

In Trondheim, developing projects in Midtbyen have challenged the 1981 zoning plan and its original intentions, during the first decade of the millennium increasingly so. Building heights for new projects, and demolition of historic buildings (outside of the designated conservation areas) have been recurring themes. As an attempt to bring the Midtbyen zoning plan up to date and to avoid the elaborate and potentially risky process of making a new zoning plan for Midtbyen, the municipality of Trondheim presented a document with guidelines to the management of the fabric of Midtbyen (Trondheim kommune, 2013c). The aim of the guidelines was to give greater predictability to builders by putting in print principles for densification. The intent was to establish more predictable processes for property development, in the face of the negotiation practice for development plans which had evolved during the late 1980s and 1990s. A stated intention in the plan was to safeguard and develop the character of Trondheim as a wooden town. The document was politically endorsed. It treated relevant themes and established significant principles, but due to its advisory nature (and maybe lack of use or lack of knowledge of its existence) it has not had the desired effect.

In The Municipal area plan 2012-2024 Midtbyen with areas with cultural heritage and cultural landscapes is regulated as zones requiring special considerations. Many new construction projects came to challenge the provisions of the city plan. The Building Council requested a revision of the plan to facilitate a more efficient land use, and the normative

19


building height of four stories to be assessed. Whether this means that the cultural heritage protection policy will be weakened, is a bit early to say (Trondheim kommune, 2013b, Trondheim kommune, 2013a).

On the political debate on the guidelines, a suggestion to allow residential use of the warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata was implemented in the vote. The aim was to make (new) use as a prerequisite for investing, care and maintenance of the buildings, of which some had fallen into disuse. This proposal was also met with protests since adaptation of these structures to residential use requires large and irreversible alterations to the historic fabric of the building. For Kjøpmannsgata a political initiative to convert the warehouses to apartment buildings is an example of an effort to let the market solve the problem of heritage buildings out of use.

The project for the vitalization of the area (Vitaliseringsprosjektet) was established in the aftermath of this decision. No warehouse buildings in this row have yet been converted to residential use (Trondheim kommune 2015).

20


1945-2006 2000-2016 Foreseeable future

Pivotal events that influenced change

Reconstruction after war. Modernism movement in architecture and planning New financial instruments (Husbanken) The European Architectural Year (1975)

Green shift in planning with focus on climate change. Densification

More liberal and market oriented urban development.

Policy themes National and regional Local (municipality / authority)

Planning and building act (1965)

Sustainable urban transition. Densification.

Regulation

Conservation planning Midtbypanen (1981)

City Council asks for a revision of Midtbyplanen to adapt to new strategies for densification and strengthen the historic core as an economic center

Incentives (financial tools)

Funding for urban conservation and architectural conservation.

Cultural Heritage Fund (2003)

Public austerity.

Focus on value creation

Direct intervention Trondheim Foundation for Urban Renewal (Trondheim byfornyelse)

Communication and civic engagement

Resident’s associations of housing welfare

Knowledge – research, studies

The Nordic Wooden Town, ICOMOS 1970 - 1972

Table 1: Chronology of cultural heritage policy development related to the historic urban core in Trondheim (Norway)

21


4. The legal and policy framework in 2016 and beyond 4.1 Policy themes and general goals – national and local The planning system in Norway follows the three governing levels (Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation, 2008).

1. National legislation, with governmental policy and guidelines. 2. Regional plans and decision making 3. Local plans and local decision making, local guidelines

The designation of listing buildings and environments are made on the national level and managed on national and regional level. The designation and management of other tangible cultural heritage is the responsibility of the local level, with the regional level as advisory body. Statutory protection is given according to the planning and building act in local plans.

The main instruments for legal protection of built heritage, heritage environments and landscapes is the Cultural Heritage Act (1978) and the Planning and Buildings Act (1987), §§11 and 12 (previously the Building Act (1965) §§25.6.

The Cultural Heritage Act (1978) replaced the Built Heritage Act of 1924, under which Norway’s first 500 buildings in private ownership were listed (Kommunaldepartmentet, 1924). Another 500 buildings in state ownership were listed simultaneously, without the legal protection. The idea was that the state would take care of its own property without the necessity of legal framework. According to the Built Heritage Act of 1924 act, buildings of “artistic and historic value” could be listed, proposals were to be made by a board of specialists (“Den Antikvariske Bygningsnemnd”) counted the National Conservation Officer (Riksantikvaren) among its members. This system was abandoned with the Cultural Heritage Act of 1978 (Ministry of Climate and Environment, 1978). Listing is the strongest legal protection which can be given to cultural heritage buildings or sites. The process for listing is time-consuming and the protection is permanent. The protection given by a listing will, if challenged, overrule requirements given in accordance with other legislation, for example building codes with references to the Planning and Building Act.

With the Building Act of 1965 it became possible to grant legal protection to buildings and built environments on a local level (Kommunal- og arbeidsdepartementet, 1965). The municipalities have the authority, and from the 1970s many of the historic built environments in Norway, predominantly in the cities and towns, were designated as conservation areas according to §25.6 of the 1965 act. With the new Planning and Building Act of 2009, the conservation area paragraph was replaced by “consideration area” paragraph, both on zoning plan and on municipal plan level. Conservation plans according to the 1965 Building Act only allowed for the character of a building was preserved, which in practice meant that replacement of all exterior building segments with copies could not be prevented through legislation, and provided no legal protection of interiors or constructions as part of the cultural heritage. The 2009 planning and building act extended the possibilities for protection of cultural heritage to include interiors, a building’s constructive parts, and details in the facades, for example authentic building components with age value.

22


Building codes that followed the new planning and building act, introduced stricter energy saving measures in buildings, which apply for all new buildings and for old buildings under major refurbishment or in the case of altered use or function. For heritage buildings the requirements for energy saving measures are not absolute, but apply “as long as they are suited”, which means that in the case of conflicting goals to save a facade or insulate and renew, exceptions will be made to preserve authentic facade or the building’s character.

Kjøpmannsgata area was designated as a conservation area with the zoning plan of Midtbyen (Midtbyplanen) in 1981. Kjøpmannsgata was one of four selected conservation areas in Midtbyen. In addition, all the historic buildings of Midtbyen were mapped (based on a major registration report “Antikvarisk klassifikasjon” from 1976 and referred to as worthy of protection in the general plan (Antikvarisk utvalg, 1976).

The municipal area plan of Trondheim (2014) has designated the Midtbyen peninsula a “consideration zone” for cultural heritage (Trondheim kommune, 2013b). This does not add but rather acknowledges the Midtbyplan’s intentions to preserve the overall historic character and buildings of Midtbyen in general. It provides rules for process, and recommendations for treatment. The plan has a general goal for densification, especially along transportation hubs. The plan does not specifically apply the densification to Midtbyen, as the centre is already rather densely built. The pressure to densify Midtbyen rather is market driven, and comes from various property actors in the city centre, both private and public.

In 2014 the municipal planning office initiated an area analysis using DIVE, a tool developed by the Directorate for Cultural Heritage to map the cultural heritage values of the area as a basis for decision making relating to schemes for regeneration of the area. The planning department opted to make a new zoning plan for Kjøpmannsgata, to ensure control of the area’s further development and preservation as cultural heritage.

4.2 Incentives and financial tools There are two main financial support schemes for Cultural heritage in private ownership, grants from the Directorate for Cultural Heritage, and grants from the Cultural Heritage Trust Fund (Kulturminnefondet), both post on the national budget. For listed buildings, the right to get financial compensation for extra expenses for repairs and restoration is mentioned in the Cultural Heritage Act. Grants from the Directorate for Cultural heritage was previously spread thin to target all cultural heritage. Today the Directorate’s grants are reserved for buildings and environments of national heritage significance, which in practice means listed buildings and environments. The grants are administered by the Directorate of Cultural Heritage and the regional authorities.

Cultural heritage management and interest groups had long been arguing for increased public spending. Instead of strengthening the annual public grants of the directorate, the Cultural Heritage Trust Fund was founded in 2003, with an independent organizational body directed by a board. The trust fund was established under the conservative government, and

23


has a clear incentive to increase private spending and investment in cultural heritage. The trust fund’s overall goal is to “contribute to conservation and re-use of cultural heritage”, and “support collaboration between private and public parties”. Sums granted for restoration must be met with an equal share of private investment1

Previously a significant portion of funds for the upkeep of agricultural landscape, part of the general agricultural program, was granted for the restoration of agricultural heritage buildings. Since the administration of these funds shifted from state to local level, less is given to buildings.

. The establishment of the cultural heritage trust fund made it possible for the Directorate to adopt a practice which prioritizing listed heritage. The fund may grant financial aid to any cultural heritage, regardless of statutory protection, and applications restoration of non-listed heritage has since been directed here.

Trondheim had a small annual fund for restoration of privately owned built heritage in the 1990s which was managed by the municipal conservation office. Private financial schemes for cultural heritage yearly grants money primarily aimed at fire prevention measures, but also give general restoration grants, the organization Norwegian Heritage (Norsk Kulturarv) and the campaign “Ta et tak” which especially targets roof repairs on heritage utilities buildings, and restoration grants from the National Trust of Norway (Fortidsminneforeningen) which is a relatively new scheme.

The Directorate for Cultural Heritage encourages all local authorities to offer property tax reduction to owners of designated cultural heritage. So far few municipalities have responded, although locally the initiative has been advocated by many political parties.

In 2014 the local conservation office in Trondheim municipality started a program for Kjøpmannsgata, the overall goal being the rehabilitation and vitalization of the buildings and the area with the cultural heritage values as the premise. The project is managed by the municipal conservation office and overseen by a management group which’ members include representatives from the municipality’s planning office, the regional cultural heritage authorities, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) and Mid-Norway Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Trondheim kommune et al.) (Trondheim kommune, 2015).

For the Kjøpmannsgata general area and buildings, restoration activity and funding in the present phase was initiated through the vitalization project, with the exception of one building (Kjøpmannsgata 27) which obtained funds from the Directorate for Cultural Heritage on advice from the regional authorities in 2008 and 2009. For the warehouses, a number of financial schemes allow progress in the restoration of buildings as well as regeneration measures for the area. The city of Trondheim contributes financially to Kjøpmannsgata increasingly and in various ways. For 2015 a sum was granted for traditional repairs on the wooden pillar foundations. From 2016 the vitalization project was included as an additional, annual strengthening of the conservation officer’s budget. Grants for the 1 www.kulturminnefondet.no

24


warehouses have been obtained from the Cultural heritage fund, and from the Directorate for Cultural Heritage’s fund for listed buildings on the argument that the warehouses are of national heritage significance (although none of them are formally listed).

4.3 Communication and citizen’s engagement In the recent years several programs have lifted cultural heritage into the digital sphere, displaying heritage for the broad public online and inviting to engage and interact with registration and collection of data. The national library and the museum sector are working steadily to digitalize and publish collections of books, historic documents, photographs and cultural heritage artefacts online.

The Directorate for Cultural Heritage has launched an online database for cultural heritage (Askeladden) with a portal where the general public and local interest groups can register cultural heritage (Kulturminnesøk). Parallel to this, the Directorate encourages local authorities to make local cultural heritage plans, and to register local cultural heritage in the database. The initiative to register local cultural heritage and formally strengthen awareness and protection of cultural heritage through plans is supported by financial incentive for the local authorities to work out plans, engage municipal conservation officers, courses and seminars (Directorate of Cultural Heritage, 2016).

Research in cultural heritage has shifted, from history and object-oriented research and examination of intrinsic heritage values in the 1970s and 80s; from knowing more about heritage, to knowing more about how heritage works.

DIVE, an abbreviation for Define, Interpret, Valuate, Enable, is developed by the Directorate for Cultural Heritage as a tool for regeneration of conservation areas and places of historic significance (Riksantikvaren 2009). The DIVE method focuses on process with engagement of citizens and stakeholders throughout the process. The analysis and final report hold forward cultural heritage as a premise for planning, with mapping of heritage values as the initial part of the process. Heritage values define the level of acceptable adaptation.

The municipal planning office in TrondheIMapping of the buildings and area in Kjøpmannsgata started in 2014, at the same time a workshop with stakeholders was arranged by the planning office, and the municipality held meetings with the owners of the warehouse buildings. The DIVE report for Kjøpmannsgata includes a history of the area and the individual buildings, assessment of heritage values in the area and buildings, mapping of functions, and suggestions of possibilities for use and activities (Trondheim kommune 2016). The analysis also includes description of the building construction types, registration of facade colours, interviews with the owners, and a discussion on the “vulnerability of the warehouses”.

The process of the DIVE analysis was initiated parallel to the startup of the project "Vitalization of Kjøpmannsgata". Work on the DIVE process and the project have been closely connected. (Riksantikvaren, 2009). (Trondheim kommune, 2016)

25


Figure 15: DIVE analysis report with caption from the report showing the upper level of Kjøpmannsgata in an intermesh between a historic photo and todays street view.

4.4 The Vitalization project for Kjøpmannsgata The Vitalization project for Kjøpmannsgata has employed a spectre of tools to raise awareness and engage owners and the general public, and to generate activity, both repairs and regeneration of the buildings. The tools include seminars and courses, workshops with the owners, one to one conversations and general engagement with owners and users, and temporary activities in the urban space. The project has also launched an architecture competition for the Kjøpmannsgata urban space, parallel to the new preservation plan which is under way from the municipal planning office.

The project is a new approach to managing cultural heritage in an urban setting and takes a different direction than traditional management. It has been characterized by a hands-off, practice, with conservation planning, building regulations and market approach as its primary tools. The Vitalization project is a mechanism to give direction to the management of this urban heritage.

Project management and involvement from the municipality, working out the DIVE analysis, temporary installations and testing of temporary activities, information and seminars for owners and craftsmen, are some of the activities and tools implemented through and in connection with the project. The overall aims are improved conservation of buildings, and more active use of the area, seeking to put the heritage forward as premise for repair and use. With the Vitalization project, the warehouses were granted public finding for repairs for the first time since the early 1980s.

26


Figure 16: In 2014 architecture students at NTNU built a wooden staircase in the rampart to mediate between the upper and lower level of Kjøpmannsgata in collaboration with the municipality as a temporary intervention in the urban fabric. The staircase is much used, and gives easier access to the lower level, activating the urban space in Kongens gate almenning. Photograph: Mette Bye

The ambition of the new conservation plan which is underway, is to regulate protection and use of the buildings based on the findings in DIVE. The new conservation and zoning plan aims at being both more use-oriented and more conservation-oriented than the 1981 Midtbyplan it will replace. Through differentiating between the different buildings` potential for use in relation to their historic value, it will give more attention to the preservation of historical substance in the most valuable structures.

The Vitalization project is conservation led, in close and active dialogue with groups of stakeholders and owners, in terms of defining schemes for transformation and use. A continued contact between owners and conservation office is considered essential. Coming into its third and final year the Vitalization project, the grounds for activity have been founded, and expected to continue with the municipal conservation office as the main point of contact.

27


Pivotal events that influenced change

1945-2006 2000-2016 Foreseeable future

Policy themes

Trondheims bybilde 1975 (“The image of Trondheim”)

Cultural heritage plan for Trondheim (2013) Urban space report Municipal area plan Guidelines for urban design and architecture

Comprehensive national and local investments in saving the warehouses

Regulation Midtbyen zoning plan (1981) including Kjøpmannsgata conservation area

Vote to allow housing in warehouses (2007) Vitalization project for Kjøpmannsgata

Kjøpmannsgata zoning plan (2016-17) Revision of Midtbyen zoning plan.

Incentives (financial tools)

Restoration grants for the warehouses

Communication and civic engagement

Vitalization project Vitalization project Arch. competition for outdoor space in Kjøpmannsgata

Knowledge – research, studies

DIVE analysis

Table 2: Examples of policy and action for management and planning of the historic urban core

Figure 17: Activity on Kongens gate allmenning during a conference I 2014 (left); a non-transformed warehouse rigged for a concert and exhibition of student works in 2014 (Wright). Photographs: Mette Bye

28


5. Mapping change in Kjøpmannsgata 5.1 The study area of Kjøpmannsgata This chapter examines the changes made to the Kjøpmannsgata warehouses and area with emphasis on the period after the last decades of the 19th century, when the river port was gradually made redundant as Trondheim’s main port and the warehouses lost their original main function as intermediate storage for trading goods in transfer from the ships to transport on land. The mapping of change involves changes made to the morphology of the area, buildings and built fabric, and function.

Kjøpmannsgata 1850-1950 In 1839 the row of warehouses was at its most complete since before the 1681 city fire (Trondheim kommune, DIVE 2016). The upper street, still one of the prominent streets in the city, was lined the wealthy merchants´ houses, two-storey buildings of wood or brick. The upper street level was cobbled. With the growing trees and grass, the rampart gradually developed the character of a park. In the 1880s a music pavilion was erected at the top of the rampart by Kongens gate Almenning.

Figure 18: The music pavilion in Kjøpmannsgata by Kongens gate Almenning Old postcard, private ownership.

While the quarter of the century from 1850-1875 saw much activity in Kjøpmannsgata, with as many as nine warehouses constructed in this period, Kjøpmannsgata´s role as port was seriously diminished towards the turn of the century. By this time several of the large trading houses in Kjøpmannsgata had closed their businesses. According to fire taxation

29


documents from the 1870s to the 1930s several warehouses underwent minor rebuilding in this period when adapting their property from storage to general store (krambod), which shows that was established in the warehouses. Some warehouses were used for the storage of fish, while the river front by the warehouses was used as a circulation port for smaller vessels. By the 1930s some warehouses had been converted to offices. The changes to the warehouses were not extensive, the changes required for conversions to new use as stores and office in this phase were minor (Dive, Trondheim kommune 2016).

The first initiative for the preservation of the warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata was mobilized in the 1930s when urban planner and professor at the Faculty of Architecture in Trondheim Sverre Pedersen presented a bold new pan for Trondheims historic urban centre, proposing to replace the warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata with modernist office blocks (figure 5). The proposal was met with general opposition, and the society of traders (Trondhjems Handelsstands Forening) argued for the warehouses´ significance for the city (Dive, Trondheim kommune 2016). Pedersen´s initiative could have resulted in the major change for Kjøpmannsgata with demolition of the warehouses on a large scale but the idea was abandoned without much debate and never developed into a proper plan.

Kjøpmannsgata 1950-1981 By the early 1950s, the Kjøpmannsgata warehouses had irrevocably lost their role as significant port in Trondheim. At this time the row was more or less complete with wooden warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata, on the 29 properties between the bridges (Bakke bridge and The Old Bridge (Gamle bybro). The row continued north of Bakke bridge. The most recent warehouse constructed in wood and displaying architectural features of the traditional warehouse was erected 1904 (Kjøpmannsgata 35).

In this period the upper street was broadened and paved with asphalt, around 1960 the walkways in the rampart were supplemented with automobile ramps, supported by walls on the lower street section. Two subterranean parking garages were established with entrances from the lower street level. The lower street was cropped on the rampart side to create a wide enough street for cars. There was some parking for the businesses in the warehouses on the common space (almenningene).

30


Figure 19: After a fire a parking garage replaced the old warehouses. Photo: Dag Kittang

In the post-war period six wooden warehouses were replaced with new constructions in the row between the bridges, which was the area of the future conservation plan. North of Bakke bridge all but one warehouse succumbed to fire in 1967.

The warehouse buildings which the area lost between 1950 and 1981 were replaced by new structures which in exterior form in different ways were given likeness to the architecture of the warehouse buildings. In their various displays of adapting to the formal character of the historic morphology, each project at same time reflects the architectural contemporariness of their decade. The parking complex in Kjøpmannsgata 41 from the 1950s, built on four warehouse properties, is a strict concrete structure entirely dedicated to the function of modern times with a parking facility, car sales outlet, petrol station and “drivers café”, connected with an underground tunnel through the rampart to the modernist office block on the upper street level, the only modernist style building in the upper section of Kjøpmannsgata. The other three buildings from this time, Kjøpmannsgta 17 and 31, both 1956, and Kjøpmannsgata 61 (1962) are modern concrete structures, but all gabled in reference to the old structures they replaced and to complete the rhythm of the streetscape and riverscape. Kjøpmannsgata 17 and 61 in addition both have facade designs which mimic the historic warehouses, with gates placed centrally in each storey, with windows to each side on the street facades.

Kjøpmannsgata 5, originally built in 1815 and damaged by fire in 1939. At the time only the undamaged lower storeys were kept. The building was reconstructed to its former size in 1978.

Kjøpmannsgata after 1981 In 1981 the row of warehouses between Gamle Bybro and Bakke bridge were designated as a conservation area. Three of the wooden warehouses burned in 1983, and new structures were raised, designed according to the provisions of the conservation plan which stated: “If a building burns or for other reasons in its entirety must be replaced by a new building, the new building´s situation, size and exterior material use facing the river, street and common space, must be alike to the building it replaces.” The buildings are a pastiches of the three warehouses they replaced. Concrete structures with wooden cladding, gabled roofs and

31


traditional colouring, within this is a complex which was completely modern after 1980s standards. Car use increased steadily throughout this period, the common space and street curb on both levels used for parking.

The Royal Garden hotel north of Bakke bridge was built in 1984 replacing a row of wooden warehouses which burned in 1967, leaving one standing. The surviving warehouse of high age and was to be preserved, but with the development of plans for a new hotel, the initial intention to incorporate the old warehouse in the new hotel complex was abandoned and the entire row became the new hotel. The site was outside the boundaries of the conservation area, and the adaptation to the historic row of warehouses is freer in form. The hotel, designed by CLFK architects, was a paraphrase of the historic structures, formally reinvented with pre-fabricated concrete slabs, steel and glass, with stubbed gables and glass facades opening on the river.

Figure 20: Royal Garden Hotel – a paraphrase of historic structure in concrete and glass.

Figure 21: Pastiche reconstruction of burned warehouses Kjøpmannsgata 61 from 1962 is an office building in concrete, to the right Kjøpmannsgata 63, 65, 67, built in the 1980s.

32


The new complex south of Bakke bridge, Kjøpmannsgata 63, 65, 67, is the latest new structure within the Kjøpmannsgata conservation area. Since this project was completed, the area and warehouses has demonstrated continuity in use, and have undergone lesser change to its fabric. In the 1980s some restoration work was done to the foundations thorugh publicly funded programs. Throughout the period the warehouses have preserved their general character, and a significant number still retain much of their authenticity in the exterior and interiors. In the interior some of the of the warehouses houses have undergone some changes in adaptation to new use, in many cases this has happened by adding surface materials, not removing or altering structures significantly. Few have gone extensive exterior visual change, although exterior original cladding and especially windows have been replaced with copies on some buildings.

One significant transformation project is Kjøpmannsgata 37, which in 2007 was converted from a cold, unused space into an office building in a project and which has been much discussed. There is agreement that the transformation from empty warehouses to offices showed architectural ambition and could serves as a model project for similar objects. The warehouse had exceptionally low heights, and the conversion required some alteration of the interior constructions. At the same time, the changes are legible and in the interior the log walls and timber beams are visible throughout the building, and the openness of the space is preserved. The exterior has not been altered although the original windows were replaced with copies, an alteration to authentic fabric which would not have been accepted today (Conservation officer, Interview 14).

Kjøpmannsgata 15 is the most extensively altered construction, the wooden foundations replaced with a concrete foundation which protrudes into the river, and most of the interior structure removed. The work was done in connection with a planned conversion which halted when the work on the foundations was stopped due to a lack of a building permit.

5.2 Changes of function Throughout the 20th century and in the postwar era the warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata found new use as workshops, storage for wood and fish, and even a tannery (Trondheim kommune, DIVE 2016). In the 1930s some warehouses were converted to office space, a trend which grew in the postwar period. Storage and sale in general was an appropriate use for the buildings.

33


Figure 22: Heggstadbrygga, Kjøpmannsgata 71, north of Bakke bridge advertising "clothes at a low price", before it was demolished in 1981 to give more room for the new hotel complex Royal Garden. Photo: Gunnar Houen, Byantikvaren, Trondheim byarkiv

The zoning plan for Kjøpmannsgata defines the area as a non-residential area for business and trade. This has so far protected the area and buildings from comprehensive adaptation to apartments, which would have changed the character of the exteriors and area, and irreversibly transformed and intervened with the constructions, built fabric and authenticity of the buildings than what we find here today. At the same time, the relatively low demand for this floor space as a place for b usiness has left the area as somewhat of a back-drop in the city centre, with some of the buildings being out of use for decades and in a state of increasing disrepair.

Mapping of the floor space done in 2014 in connection with the DIVE analysis showed that 80% of the floor space was in use, while 20% of the floor space was empty and had no function. There were five buildings which were empty, these partly corresponded with the buildings that are most authentic as historic buildings and have undergone few changes in facade and fabric, and which subsequently have high cultural heritage value, and were in various states of disrepair.

The buildings which were partly or fully in use included the functions restaurants, a mosque, parking and petrol station, gallery, gym, clinic, school and office floor space, and shops. The petrol station and parking is situated in a newer structure, Brungarasjen, built ca 1950, the gym and school in a complex built in the 1980s (Trondheim kommune, 2016).

Of the five warehouses which are empty, three are large and prominently placed along the street and river and very visible. Kjøpmannsgata 13, originally three warehouses joined and

34


converted to one, is in a apparent state of decay, an impression which is reenforced by the fact that the facade facing the river has no remnants of paint. The empty warehouses haver reflected on the whole street, giving a general impression of Kjøpmannsgata as a derelict area. Together with a general sense of pessimism for the whole of Midtbyen; newspaper articles comment decline in trade and generally promoted a bleak view of the city centre’s qualities and commercial potential. This view and the assumed problems of Kjøpmannsgata prompted a vote in 2013 for allowing housing in the warehouse buildings, an initiative which came from political circles.

Housing in the warehouses had already been allowed in a proximity street, Fjordgata. In Kjøpmannsgata residential use was contradictory to the current area and conservation plan, which designates the building for use as office space and general commercial activity. The conservation office and conservation authorities were generally opposed to allow housing, because conversion to housing calls for larger and more irreversible intervention with the historic fabric of the buildings, in addition to closing off parts or whole of the buildings permanently from the general public. These views coma across in the interview material (see chapter 6).

6. Experiencing Kjøpmannsgata In connection with the project 14 comprehensive interviews were conducted with public officials from the town planning office (4) and the city conservation office (2), politicians from different political parties (4) people from real estate industry / property owners (2), a representative for the local Chamber of Commerce and Industry (1) and a student in urban planning / temporary resident (1). The interviews were prepared through an interview guide with 30 questions addressing different issues:

• The main features of the city and how they constitute the sense of place • The valuation of the city’s identity and cultural heritage • Management in preserving the sense of place, partnership, cooperation and citizens’

involvement.

The questions were divided in two thematic sections, the city centre of Midtbyen and the zoning plan for Midtbyen (Midtbyplanen), and Kjøpmannsgata as a conservation area within Midtbyen. Since Kjøpmannsgata is a section of Midtbyen and a conservation area within the Midtbyen plan, the questions addressing Midtbyen in general have relevance both for the overall view of Midtbyen, and for the more specific issues of the Kjøpmannsgata conservation area.

6.1 How main features constitute the city and sense of place The city of Trondheim has a strong historic identity, with high awareness of its long history. Being the oldest town in Norway with a more than 1000 years long history, the historic footprints are visible in the city. On the question of what – in general - are the most

35


important feature and how these constitute an identity marker for the city, all the interviewed mention cultural heritage like the Cathedral, the street grid baroque town plan from 1681, and Trondheim’s built heritage of wooden building. The warehouses along the river in Kjøpmannsgata were mentioned specifically among these.

The interviews showed a strong consensus on how cultural heritage constitutes an identity of place identity and the image of Trondheim. The various positions of the persons interviewed was determinative for the emphasis on what features or activities were the most significant in defining the area – as centre for commerce, cultural activities, social interaction, residence or public office. The different modes of emphasis are not mutually exclusive but saying one feature or activity is more important than another has implications for what kind of regime for conservation is considered appropriate.

On the question on what is considered important to preserve in Midtbyen, the planning student replied: "The image of Trondheim is really the warehouses. The warehouses, viewed from the Old Bridge (Gamle bybro), it is really very beautiful. Det is really no doubt, it is probably what is finest in Trondheim, at least built by people." (Interview 4).

The representative the Mid-Norway Chamber of Commerce and Industry placed trade as the most important feature of Midtbyen: "It may seem as though some people think a city centre can survive on pretty houses and museums and cafés alone, but I do not believe that this attracts people. So, it is important that there is a good commercial centre with exciting shops and something one wants to go in to shop for." (Interview 5). There was much concern for how to strengthen the competitive edge of the city centre, and a historic identity was considered an asset for Midtbyen, providing another experience than the shopping malls on the fringe of the city. Accessibility with private cars, increasing the number of residents in Midtbyen and providing more flexible commercial space were put forward as important measures for the city centre. Strengthening the identity of the city centre through enhancing heritage was mentioned as important to make Midtbyen more competitive and attractive for visitors and future residents.

Our data contains also interviews with two major developers in the city center. Although they express a pragmatic approach to the city and its identity, their answers reflect the notion of consensus on the values of the cultural heritage and how these constitute place identity.

On the question on Midtbyen’s most important functions, the developers said: “Social, cultural and commercial, maybe first and foremost commercial.“ (Interview 12) “Trade, pure and simple, that is why we are here and that is how Midtbyen came about” (Interview 3). When asked to talk about the characteristics, values and identity of Midtbyen, history came up many times, mentioned along with safety and well-being, it is a good place to be and a good place to work, and Midtbyens significance as identity marker for the whole city considered undisputable: “The fact that Trondheim is a historic city, this has value. And also, that Trondheim has big potential for the future, with the university and developments in technology. So I believe both history and technology are values which strengthen Midtbyen.

36


Without the historic core of Midtbyen, Trondheim does not have an identity. It could be any city. Midtbyen is the soul of Trondheim.” (Interview 3).

Representatives for the trade and industry and the property developers regard the values of the cultural heritage and place identity as an important competitive edge for the commercial activity in the historic core.

6.2 The valuation of cultural heritage and sense of place The final session of the interviews focused on the Kjøpmannsgata warehouses and area. Recurring themes were the use and treatment of the historic warehouses, what consequences residential use could have of this for the built heritag, access to the area, traffic and use of the street and open areas, and trees.

Valuing and experiencing the warehouses One planner we talked to, expressed the experience of being inside one of the historic warehouses in the following way: “Everyone who has entered that warehouse is struck by both visual impressions and of space, the smell and the materials. So it is very significant to both the citizens and the tourists to be allowed to experience rooms like this as authentic as possible. So I believe that functions which are open to the public are of interest to consider, and which allow for experiencing original surfaces and interior space” (Interview 1). The warehouse referred to has been in use as a wood workshop and storage space, and is presently empty. Over the past years it has occasionally been used for pop-up events like exhibitions, concerts, seminars, workshops and markets. Except for one room which is furnished as a kitchen, the warehouse has not been altered (Kjøpmannsgata 27).

Of the people we talked to, some stressed the importance of visual management of the exteriors, not on preserving the warehouses on the inside. They placed great value on preserving the image of the warehouse row, and also the importance of use and activity. In the words of one of the young politicians we talked to: “The most important is not to protect the interiors… how the buildings are on the inside … (but) to develop and adapt to current needs. The image of the warehouses, the facades, is incredible important” (Interview 2).

One politician talked about his experience inside a warehouse converted to offices and art gallery in 2007 (Kjøpmannsgata 37), and also reflected on the continuity of functions: “Have you visited that firm, in Kjøpmannsgata in one of the warehouses? It is a warehouse where they have been permitted to do some alternations inside to convert it to offices, but at the same time it is done so, I sense that the interior is well cared for while at the same time there is enough daylight. It is done with respect for the warehouse” (Interview 8). On the potential use of the warehouses the same politician, a representative of the conservatives, commented: “We were one of the parties to open up for considering residential use, but at the same time I believe the best would be if we managed to use them for trade and commerce. I would prefer there to be working life in the warehouses, because that has somehow always been their role. Also because I believe conversions to working space are less interventional and more in accordance with the needs to preserve.”

37


The conservation officer reflected on the change in attitude towards the warehouses over time: “There were views not very many years ago, from people who knew the warehouses well, not our people, academics and the like, but users of the warehouses, who said ´they must be demolished as soon as possible so we can do something proper there. It is too cold, the floors are uneven, the ceilings too low, we cannot go on like this´, and this from people who had kept firms in the warehouses for many decades. And then the issues are allowed to rest for a while and then we get this situation with the Midtbyen plan (in 1981) and we get a completely new view of what needs to be preserved and new ambitions and the status of the warehouses are placed high on the list of cultural heritage.”

On the question of whether there was a discord among politicians in the question of protection of the warehouses one response was inconclusive: “I think everyone is concerned with protection. But to what extent and how, there are probably different views. (...) It is natural that you want to keep the visual. But what's happening to interiors and how to take care of historical building methods, we do not have any answers yet”.

Figure 21: Huitfeldtbrygga. Three different buildings, connected under a common roof. The building in the middle is the oldest from around 1760. An example of repairing the foundations to the right.

Experiencing the area The image of the warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata facing the river was described as iconic, beautiful and significant. When talking about experiencing the area, the emphasis was on the street side of Kjøpmannsgata where the warehouses are accessed these days.

Kjøpmannsgata has two streets on two levels divided by a grassy rampart with large leafy trees. Four ramps for cars cut through the rampart, there is parking along the lower street facing the warehouses. The lower street is lined by the green rampart, driving ramps, walls and parking on one side, the dense row of warehouse facades on the other. The row

38


between the bridges is intercepted by two common spaces with access to the river, three if the little park by the old bridge is counted. The upper street is one of the city´s main traffic thoroughfares: “One seldom walks down there to the warehouses. And Kjøpmannsgata is a rather sad street to move in (…) it is dominated by traffic, the sidewalk is narrow in the upper street and when walking here along the rampart one feels a little unsafe. Also on the lower street the cars dominate, even though the cars are not moving it is difficult to find out where to walk. There is no sidewalk. And it is dark down there. Or, not very dark but the trees are very shady. Those trees are very nice for the rest of the street, so something will be lost if they are removed, too” (Interview 4). The representative for the Mid-Norway Chamber of Commerce and Industry clearly conveyed the impression that the warehouses are derelict and the area on the street side a backdrop in the city: “There is no life in the warehouses. They stand there, and some stand there and maybe they will fall down one day, right” (Interview 5), an impression shared by one of the politicians: “It seems so sad down there, to put it that way. Narrow sidewalks ... one needs reasons to go down there, and at present there are no reasons” (Interview 2).

The impression of the street side area as somewhat of a backdrop was shared by many of the interviewed. One of the planners we talked to was more positive about the present situation: “There are many streets in this city which are worse. But because there are buildings here of great value and which are now at risk, the area is defined as a problem. One can naturally adjust some elements to increase the activity and raise the attractiveness of the area (...) but I do not find that the street in itself is a problem. So you could say that the patient is ill, but not suffering from the ailment you think” (Interview 1).

Both the present and future state of the Kjøpmannsgata was a theme in the interviews, most were optimistic about what the area could become in a decade or two, both in terms of activity, the state of the buildings, and general attractiveness of the area.

At the same time there was concern among many that residential use would affect the way the area is perceived, both in terms of access, relevance and legibility, as one of the planners we talked to put it: “If the area use is changed in favor of residential use, this would be very privatizing for the whole environment and one would lose the possibility to have a kind of environment which conveys what this has been in the past” (Interview 9).

39


Figure 23 : Kjøpmannsgata upper and lower street with rampart and driving ramp. Photo Mette Bye

6.3 Management in preserving sense of place. The management of historic urban cores as cultural heritage is the responsibility of the local planning and building authority, with the conservation officer as main advisor and, in many cases, the main point of contact between owners and municipality. In Trondheim routine of involving the conservation officer was gradually established as a practice from the time this position was taken on by the municipality in the mid-1970s. The position was initially temporary, since the mid-1970s, until it was finally established as permanent in 1984.

Building permits The contact with the conservation officer was mainly on a case to case basis. The conservation zoning plan for Kjøpmannsgata provided protection of buildings with an emphasis on preservation of facades and “character” of the buildings’ exteriors and area. The zoning plan defined Kjøpmannsgata as a non-residential area for trade and business, and the limitation to this use has probably been as effective for preservation as the facade regulations.

In the case of Kjøpmannsgata the warehouses all have private ownership. The building authorities are involved in cases of change which require a building permit, outside of this many minor changes have been made and the conservation officer involved at the will of the owner only.

40


Actors with the local authorities involve the planning and building department, the fire department, parking, parks service and the conservation officer. Significant actors in the area are the owners, local individuals or local property companies, the users and tenants of the buildings, as well as the general public which in this case involves a significant number of tourists.

The regional conservation authorities also play a role in Kjøpmannsgata area on behalf of the Directorate for Cultural Heritage. For conservation areas the regional conservation authorities do not play a role in the general management but can intervene as an authority if heritage values are threatened.

Repairs For building maintenance and repairs, alterations and adaptations to new use, the owner is the key actor in the management of each individual building. This is demonstrated in very different ways in how the warehouses have been treated. The traditional wooden warehouses are all variations over the same historic construction type, but the historic construction has rarely been used as basis for methods of repair. From the early 1980s until now, a modernistic engineer-based approach has been the rule for maintenance and repairs, while the focus of the conservation advisors has been facades and, to a certain extent, the preservation of main interior structural features.

The very ways in which foundations have been repaired, demonstrate the lack of consensus with regard to method in maintenance of the warehouses. A whole range of different approaches has been tested over the years, with solutions spanning from the introduction of new, massive concrete slabs protruding into the river, replacing wooden pillars with concrete pillars, creating a set base for wooden pillars by creating a river floor of poured cement, to the replacement of broken wooden pillars with same which was the original and intended historically correct method of repair. The various approaches so far reflect the knowledge and intent of each owner.

Role of developers In recent decades, there is a clear development by having few but major players in the real estate market, especially in Midtbyen. One of the challenges has been that this could mean a reduction of diversity in the city where families owned the properties and run the business, now have sold to big property owners who often own the whole urban quarter and are renting out to retail chains.

In the development of neoliberal urban planning, urban development has become more project-oriented and less planning-driven. On the question on the zoning plan for Midtbyen and whether this should be revised, one property developer said: “It's a hopeless negotiating field. A revision will create more predictability. Clear limits make sense… Once decided, and it is indelible.” But the property developers and the representatives from commercial businesses do not always appreciate this opportunity to negotiate solutions. “I can understand that the officers at the City Planning Office appreciate use of discretion in the discussion of possible solutions, but we prefer predictability”. (Interview 12) Another

41


property developer was however concerned about the rigidness of the plan and how it is interpreted: “Regarding the planning tools, we have obviously a dilemma. The plan should be flexible and open for changes and adaptation to new prerequisites for the area. On the other side the plan cannot be so open that it is unpredictable and subject to many different interpretations. The balance here is very hard to find”.

One of these developers says: “The politicians must know their role. They must not abdicate their power. When politicians say that the developers are the ones who determine urban development, this frightens me. We do not steer anything. We relate to the framework and possibilities which exist. We are only the useful idiots who put into action what they want, as long as the market asks for it” (Interview 12).

Role of a new zoning plan The 2013 vote to allow residential use of the warehouses in Kjøpmannsgata was an attempt to regenerate the area through private initiative and investment in what at the time was the most attractive use for the city centre. In 1981 when the Midtbyen plan was approved, the case was the opposite. At that time there was an official policy to attract business to the city centre and not to encourage new residential establishments.

A new zoning and conservation plan for Kjøpmannsgata is in the making, and will address the question of use and possibility for allowing residential use in the warehouses. Already a designated conservation area with a specific type of buildings, the issues with this area are more confined that for Midtbyen as a whole, like managing constructions and interiors and authenticity of built fabric, and the planning and design of outdoor space. When asked about what a new plan for Kjøpmannsgata might achieve, one young politician pointed out the symbolic value of this, believing that investing in a new plan would heighten the status of the area: “I think that the owners of the warehouses get a signal that we actually want to use Kjøpmannsgata, that we want to allow for things to happen” (Interview 2). One of the municipal planners expressed some reluctance: “Apartments will not save Kjøpmannsgata any more than use as office space. And the oldest and most valuable warehouses will definitely not be saved this way, they can not become residential. Using the process of making a plan to examine what functions are appropriate here is well enough, but I do not believe that a zoning plan will create more activity here, or save the warehouses, in itself” (Interview 1). The representative for the Mid-Norway Chamber of Commerce and Industry was very clear: “I think we actually have to deal with the four to five warehouses which are empty, have them restored and find appropriate use. I do not believe that a new plan for Kjøpmannsgata will create more activity, nor save these buildings.” (Interview 5).

We recognise different attitudes to manage the historic city which are defined by different discursive positions. The role of the conservation officer is to negotiate the positions between the owner or developer, and heritage interests. With the vote to consider allowing residency in the warehouses, the developers and owners express a wish to take advantage of this, as renting out office space has limited proceeds: “Officer is difficult use. We have very many square meters which there is very little interest for. The market for office space will not grow, so I believe some should be converted to apartments.” (Interview 12). The

42


conservation office has been forced to enter into a discussion about this by participating in the DIVE analysis: “We are in a process where we consider giving maybe somewhat more concessions than we could ideally wish for (...) because we must make sure something is done. (...) We who are in charge of preservation cannot be blind for the city to evolve” (Interview 13 and 14).

The DIVE analysis will be a tool for managing the question of preservation and residential use or the warehouses, as a system which makes cultural heritage value defining for what level of transformation can be tolerated on each building. The stated intentions are that the plan is to be guided by the DIVE analysis.

Managing the area The conservation officer believes the plan will give some possibilities on the area level: “Solutions for traffic and enabling to steer future development in terms of how many car ramps we want and common solutions for waste, bicycle parking, and how to use the ground floor of the warehouses.” (Interview 14).

Improving the circulation of the area is emphasised as the most important potential to increase access and attractiveness in the area, “to make it easier for people to approach the lower street, either stairs or walkways or more exclusive passage for people and less for cars.” (Interview 1). The outdoor plots and streets are municipal property. In 2017 an architecture competition for the area was arranged as a collaboration between the municipality and the state roads department. The ideas of the winning teams will be included as a basis for the new area plan (Trondheim commune 2017).

7. Consequences of planning reform for the cultural heritage and sense of place

Since the implementation of the first general conservation and zoning plan for the historic centre in 1981, a shift can be detected from planning, defined and determined by the authorities, to planning through private initiative, determined by negotiation and governance. This shift has been especially marked over the past decade, since 2007. As a response to the continuous challenging of the 1981 plan, a set of general guidelines for Midtbyen were adopted in 2013 as an attempt to steer development, building heights and conservation. The guidelines have not been much recognized by developers, who actually express wishes for more specific regulations.

While the planning authority admit that the guidelines are not much actively used as a tool, the goals and content of the document reflect the recommendations of the planning office from case to case. For the conservation area of Kjøpmannsgata, these guidelines were not instrumental for a desired investment and refurbishment of derelict and empty warehouses. The Vitalization project which was launched in 2014, involving various stakeholders and with

43


a set of tools and activities, showed promise for rehabilitation of the warehouses with attention to preserving authenticity and “values of experience”, as well as for increased use and activity.

7.1 How is the governance and planning of the historic urban core changing and why?

Demand for larger and more flexible commercial space, shopping centres replacing small businesses, and renewed interest in urban residences has challenged height regulations and conservation interests in the historic urban core. The Midtbyen plan from 1981 was designed as a flexible zoning plan for the whole urban centre and historic core. For the historic centre the Midtbyen guidelines from which were adopted in 2013 was an attempt to meet the repeated challenges made to for example height regulations, where the 1981 plan limited new buildings to four storeys. Outside the three designated conservation areas, historic buildings of interest have largely been preserved according to the general intent of the 1981 zoning plan, however through fires and pressure to develop (sometimes in combination) loss of historic buildings can be accounted for also after 1981, and with this a detectable change in the urban landscape. For the past decade, the challenge to height regulations in building and compromise in negotiations with the planning authorities has been the most detectable shift in governance and planning in Midtbyen. For historic buildings, loss of authentic fabric is the most detectable change, both with renewal of facades on wooden buildings, and wooden building elements (windows and doors) on historic buildings in general, as well as “gutting” of interiors and constructive elements to comply with user requirements and buildings codes for energysaving, fire-prevention, sound-proofing etc.

The ongoing process with rehabilitation and vitalization of the Kjøpmannsgata warehouses represent a shift in the approach to built heritage, representing on the one hand a strict use-oriented approach to conservation, which reflects national policies for heritage management, and at the same time a more conservative approach to restoration, with attention to conservation of authentic fabric, also behind the facades, and application of traditional craftsmanship in restoration, as well as a comprehensive, planning oriented approach to restore and use cultural heritage through the application of the DIVE method.

The challenge of the Kjøpmannsgata conservation area has for many decades been a seemingly low level of commercial activity, with the most authentic buildings left empty and in a state of detectable negligence. In connection with the discussions on the Midtbyen guidelines in 2013, a political initiative was made proposing to allow conversion of the ware houses to flats, housing being much in demand in the city centre and a definite “money maker” which would ensure investment. This initiative exemplifies a general trend to leave the market solve problems of decay and disuse of cultural heritage, a strategy which frequently results in facadism and privatization of urban space as consequence. However, with the vitalization project and the new area plan, takes a different direction by partnering

44


private ownership with public, conservation led initiative which also aims at involving the general public.

7.2 How are relationships between tangible and intangible cultural heritage in governing of urban heritage?

A stronger focus on conservation through use, and generally more focus on channelling restoration resources into projects linked to sustainable economic business schemes and “value creation” has been a theme in national conservation policy of funding the past decade.

At the same time, new tools to steer conservation and development through planning have been launched by the directorate for cultural heritage with the DIVE analysis method, which has been used in Kjøpmannsgata.

Kjøpmannsgata is a very interesting case on this point. While the facades facing the river constitute Trondheim’s most photographed and iconic historic scene and is frequently used to advertise the city as a tourist destination as well as numerous products and events, from cars to music festivals, the street side of the row of buildings appears neglected. No restoration initiatives have been made since the early 1980s before 2012, all repairs and investment were left to the owners. The ongoing vitalization project takes on the area as cultural heritage as well as exploring appropriate uses and area developments, in a a conservation-led approach which involves much more than repairs of historic fabric. Knowledge, involvement, activities, funding and collaboration with owners is part of the strategy. In addition, the preparation of a new area plan has employed the mapping and process according to the method DIVE, a tool aid for planning in cultural heritage environments.

7.3 What are citizens’ perceptions of sense of place?

The citizens` sense of place is generally superficial and for heritage associated with façadism, however awareness programs, as tested in the vitalization project, prove successful in creating a more complex perception and deeper understanding for the value of built heritage and the area.

45


7.4 How can policy makers manage place identity in the historic urban core?

It is yet to be seen whether the tools presently tested for the Kjøpmannsgata area are successful in creating more activity while better preserving the built heritage with increased respect for the authenticity of the warehouses. With the current state of things, there is promise. With the present building codes, and with the complexity of acquiring funding for restoration, a close collaboration between owners and authorities is required.

46


8. References Andersson & Skjånes As 1965. Generalplanen for Trondheim, Prinsippforslag til byutvikling /

trafikkplan Midtbyen. Kartvedlegg 18: Midtbyen funksjonsdeling.. Antikvarisk Utvalg 1976. Trondheims bybilde. In: Trondheim Kommune (ed.). Trondheim. Bjørnland, D. & Hegdalstrand, K. 1989. Vegen og samfunnet : en oversiktlig fremstilling og

analyse i anledning Vegdirektoratets 125-årsjubileum 1864-1989, Oslo, Cappelen. Blom, G. A., Sandnes, J., Grankvist, R., Kirkhusmo, A. & Aase, M. 1997. Hellig Olavs by :

middelalder til 1537, Oslo, Universitetsforl. Council of Europe. 1975 The Decalaration of Amsterdam [Online].

http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/169-the-declaration-of-amsterdam. Downloaded 25-09-2017. [Accessed].

Directorate of Cultural Heritage. 2016. Kulturminne i kommunen (KIK) [Online]. http://www.riksantikvaren.no/Prosjekter/Kulturminne-i-kommunen-KIK. [Accessed 2017-09-25].

Finansdepartementet 2009. St. meld. nr. 9 (2008 - 2009) Perspektivmeldingen 2009. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/e01ccf9cefb847cdafd1899cb17584c5/no/pdfs/stm200820090009000dddpdfs.pdf.

Icomos & Konsthögskolans Arkitekturskola 1972. Den Nordiska trästaden - Trebyer i Norden, Stockholm, Konsthögskolans arkitekturskola.

Kavli, G. 1966. Trønderske trepaleer. Borgerlig panelarkitektur nordenfjells, Oslo, J.W.Cappelens forlag.

Kittang, D. 2007. Saving The Wooden Town of Trondheim - A Study of an Urban Planning Discourse. . Nordisk arkitekturforskning 2007, s. 45-58.

Kittang, D. 2014. Trebyen Trondheim - modernisering og vern : ein studie av byplandebatten 1960-2005, Bergen, Fagbokforl.

Kommunal- Og Arbeidsdepartementet 1965. Building Act. https://lovdata.no/pro/#document/NLO/lov/1965-06-18-7?searchResultContext=1174. Downloaded 26-09-2017.

Kommunaldepartmentet 1924. Built heritage act. https://dibk.no/globalassets/byggeregler/tidligere_regelverk/historisk-arkiv-1949---1987/lov-om-bygningsvesenet.pdf. Accessed 25-09-2017.

Koteng, I. 2016. Interview. In: Kittang, D., Bye, M. & Valderaune, A. M. (eds.) PICH

Ministry of Climate and Environment 1978. Cultural Heritage Act.

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/cultural-heritage-act/id173106/ Downloaded 05.09.2017: Government.no.

Ministry of Climate and Environment 1985. Plan and Building Act. https://lovdata.no/pro/#document/NLO/lov/1985-06-14-77. Downloaded 25-09-2017.

Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation 2008. Planning and Building Act. https://lovdata.no/sok?q=plan-+og+bygningsloven. Downloaded 26-09-2017.

Ntnu 2009. Kursrapporter i Teknisk bygningsvern og restaurering. Riksantikvaren 2009. DIVE. Kulturhistorisk stedsanalyse. En veileder.

http://www.riksantikvaren.no/Tema/Byer-og-tettsteder/DIVE-kulturhistorisk-stedsanalyse Downloaded 5.09.2017.

http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/169-the-declaration-of-amsterdam�

http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/169-the-declaration-of-amsterdam�

http://www.riksantikvaren.no/Prosjekter/Kulturminne-i-kommunen-KIK�

https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/e01ccf9cefb847cdafd1899cb17584c5/no/pdfs/stm200820090009000dddpdfs.pdf�

https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/e01ccf9cefb847cdafd1899cb17584c5/no/pdfs/stm200820090009000dddpdfs.pdf�

https://lovdata.no/pro/#document/NLO/lov/1965-06-18-7?searchResultContext=1174�

https://lovdata.no/pro/#document/NLO/lov/1965-06-18-7?searchResultContext=1174�

https://dibk.no/globalassets/byggeregler/tidligere_regelverk/historisk-arkiv-1949---1987/lov-om-bygningsvesenet.pdf�

https://dibk.no/globalassets/byggeregler/tidligere_regelverk/historisk-arkiv-1949---1987/lov-om-bygningsvesenet.pdf�

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/cultural-heritage-act/id173106/�

https://lovdata.no/pro/#document/NLO/lov/1985-06-14-77�

https://lovdata.no/sok?q=plan-+og+bygningsloven�

http://www.riksantikvaren.no/Tema/Byer-og-tettsteder/DIVE-kulturhistorisk-stedsanalyse�

http://www.riksantikvaren.no/Tema/Byer-og-tettsteder/DIVE-kulturhistorisk-stedsanalyse�

47


Statistics Norway 2016. Folkemengden etter grunnkrets. Trondheim per 1.1.2001 - 2016. http://www.trondheim.kommune.no/folkemengde/.

Statistics Norway. 2017. Kommunefakta Trondheim. Befolkning [Online]. https://www.ssb.no/kommunefakta/trondheim. [Accessed].

Stugu, O. S., Sandnes, J., Grankvist, R., Kirkhusmo, A. & Aase, M. 1997. Kunnskapsbyen : 1964-1997, Oslo, Universitetsforl.

Trondheim Kommune 1981. Reguleringsplan for Midtbyen - reguleringsbestemmelser og stadfestingsbrev. Trondheim: Trondheim kommune.

Trondheim Kommune 2012. Hensynssoner utvalgte kulturmiljø. Kommuneplanens arealdel 2012 - 2024. Vedlegg 5. http://www.trondheim.kommune.no/content/1117731328/Kommuneplanens-arealdel-2012-2024.

Trondheim Kommune 2013a. Kommunedelplan for kulturminner og kulturmiljøer 2013 - 2025. Trondheim.

Trondheim Kommune 2013b. Planbeskrivelse. Kommuneplanens arealdel 2012 - 2024. Trondheim Kommune 2013c. Veileder for plan- og byggesaker i Midtbyen. Trondheim Kommune 2015. Vitaliseringsprosjektet. Vitalisering av Kjøpmannsgatebryggene i

Trondheim. Prosjektbeskrivelse 2015 - 2018. https://trondheim.kommune.no/bryggene/prosjekt. Downloaded 2017-09-11.

Trondheim Kommune 2016. Kulturmiljøet i Kjøpmannsgata. En kulturhistorisk stedsanalyse av bryggerekken og tilhørende områder. DIVE analyse. In: Byplankontoret (ed.). Trondheim.

Trondheim Kommune, Midtbyen Management & Næringsforeningen I Trondheimsregionen 2015, 2016, 2017,. Midtbyregnskapet. http://trondheim2030.no/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2017/01/MIDTBYREGNSKAP-2016_DIGITAL-FIL-KORR.pdf Downloaded 2018-05-20).

Wright, F. L. O. P. J. M. 1984. The master architect: conversation with Frank Lloyd Wright, New York, Wiley.

http://www.trondheim.kommune.no/folkemengde/�

https://www.ssb.no/kommunefakta/trondheim�

http://www.trondheim.kommune.no/content/1117731328/Kommuneplanens-arealdel-2012-2024�

http://www.trondheim.kommune.no/content/1117731328/Kommuneplanens-arealdel-2012-2024�

https://trondheim.kommune.no/bryggene/prosjekt�

http://trondheim2030.no/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2017/01/MIDTBYREGNSKAP-2016_DIGITAL-FIL-KORR.pdf�

http://trondheim2030.no/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2017/01/MIDTBYREGNSKAP-2016_DIGITAL-FIL-KORR.pdf�

Documents

The historic urban core: Case study of the warehouses in ... · 5/31/2018 · buildings registered on the local vigilance map (Trondheim kommune, 2013a). The most prominent monument